[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 25, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40767-40772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14211]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 90

[ET Docket No. 04-151, WT Docket No. 05-96 and ET Docket No. 02-380; 
FCC 07-99]


Wireless Operations in the 3650-3700 MHz Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

[[Page 40768]]


ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document addresses petitions for reconsideration filed in 
response to the Commission's Report and Order relating to the 3650-3700 
MHz band (3650 MHz band) proceeding. The Commission affirms its 
previous decisions to create a spectrum environment that will encourage 
multiple entrants and stimulate the expansion of broadband service to 
rural and under served areas. To facilitate rapid deployment in the 
band, the Commissions maintain the previously adopted, non-exclusive 
licensing scheme. The clarification and modification will facilitate 
operation of the widest variety of broadband technologies with minimal 
risk of interference in both the near and long terms. They should 
further reduce the potential for co-channel interference, provide 
additional protections to the multiple users in the band under the 
current licensing regime, and create incentives for the rapid 
development of broadly compatible contention technologies.

DATES: Effective August 24, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Dygert, Policy and Rules 
Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-7300, e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket No. 04-151, FCC 07-99, adopted 
May 22, 2007 and released June 17, 2007. The full text of this document 
is available on the Commission's Internet site at http://www.fcc.gov. 
It is also available for inspection and copying during regular business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document also may be 
purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, Best Copy and 
Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, 
DC 20554; telephone (202) 488-5300; fax (202) 488-5563; e-mail 
[email protected].

Summary of the Memorandum Opinion and Order

    1. The Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) addresses petitions for 
reconsideration filed in response to the Commission's Report and Order, 
70 FR 24712, May 11, 2005, in prior proceedings relating to the 3650-
3700 MHz band (3650 MHz band). The parties petitioning for 
reconsideration were: BRN Phoenix (BRN); the Enterprise Wireless 
Alliance (EWA); Intel Corporation, Redline Communications and Alvarion 
(jointly); Motorola; Redline Communications; the Satellite Industry 
Association (SIA); the Wireless Communications Association (WCA); and 
the Wi-Max Forum.
    2. The MO&O affirms the Commission's previous decisions to create a 
spectrum environment that will encourage multiple entrants and 
stimulate the expansion of broadband service to rural and under served 
areas. To facilitate rapid deployment in the band, the Commission 
maintains the previously adopted, non-exclusive licensing scheme. 
Additionally, the Commission declines to reconsider the requirement 
that equipment operating in the 3650 MHz band incorporate a contention-
based protocol, a technology that permits multiple licensees to share 
spectrum by ensuring that all licensees receive reasonable 
opportunities to operate in the band. The Commission clarifies the 
meaning of contention-based protocol and modifies the rules to limit 
the operation of equipment using ``restricted'' contention-based 
protocols (those that are not capable of avoiding co-frequency 
interference with all other types of contention-based protocols) to the 
lower 25 megahertz portion of the 3650 MHz band. The Commission's 
actions should facilitate operation of the widest variety of broadband 
technologies with minimal risk of interference in both the near and 
long terms. The order should further reduce the potential for co-
channel interference, provide additional protections to the multiple 
users in the band under the current licensing regime, and create 
incentives for the rapid development of broadly compatible contention 
technologies.
    3. Additionally, the Commission denies requests for reconsideration 
of the previously adopted power limits for fixed and mobile 
transmissions in the band, concluding that the limits adopted serve to 
protect against interference both among the band's licensees and with 
satellite earth stations. Finally, it denies requests to modify the 
out-of-band emission limits in the rules and declines to revise the 
rules regarding coordination with satellite licensees operating in the 
grandfathered exclusion zones around satellite earth stations.

Licensing and Use of the Band

    4. The Commission adopted a nationwide non-exclusive licensing 
scheme for the 3650 MHz band in order to create a spectrum environment 
conducive to the prompt entry by multiple broadband providers in under-
served markets--and at low entry costs and with minimal regulatory 
delay. The Commission concluded that the non-exclusive licensing model, 
in conjunction with operational and technical safeguards (such as the 
contention-based protocol and a registration requirement), would 
obligate licensees to cooperate to avoid harmful interference. The 
Commission concluded that the licensing rules it adopted would ``ensure 
open access to this spectrum for nominal application fees and allow 
effective and efficient use of this spectrum in response to market 
forces.'' This, the Commission reasoned, would encourage ``rapid 
deployment of broadband technologies'' and advance the ``goal of 
bringing broadband services to all Americans, including consumers 
living in less densely populated rural and suburban areas.
    5. All of the arguments for making modifications to the licensing 
rules rest on the assumption that non-exclusive licensing will 
frustrate potential users of the band and its efficient use. The 
Commission disagrees with these projections. While it acknowledges that 
the use of a non-exclusive licensing approach must be accompanied with 
the means to ensure that multiple users can operate successfully in the 
band, the Commission concludes that it adopted appropriate and 
practical mechanisms to ensure such an outcome.
    6. The Commission declines to alter the band's cooperation 
requirement to approximate the rights available in an exclusive 
licensing model. It is not persuaded that the various steps that 
parties suggest in this regard would more effectively further the 
public interest and the Commission's goals in this proceeding than the 
current non-exclusive licensing scheme or that the benefits of these 
proposed changes overweigh the costs. For example, creating the type of 
first-in-time rights that parties suggest would give initial market 
entrants the ability to structure their operations in a manner that 
could impede subsequent providers' ability to offer viable services and 
diminish any incentive that such initial market entrants might have in 
negotiating interference avoidance measures to accommodate new 
entrants. Requiring the use of third-party frequency coordinators would 
also add an unnecessary extra layer of process that operators would 
have to satisfy before deploying their equipment and initiating 
service. Given the use of contention protocols in the band, the 
Commission declines to require a separate entity to serve as a gate-
keeper for the spectrum. Similarly, performance standards and the 
attendant reporting obligation would

[[Page 40769]]

duplicate the discipline that the market will already provide. If an 
operator is not providing adequate service, other operators will be 
free to deploy their facilities in the market and begin their own 
operations.
    7. The Commission disagrees that non-exclusive licensing will make 
the band unusable. The licensing procedures adopted for the band 
provide no first-in-time right to exclude others from entering a 
market, as would be necessary to make squatting behavior profitable. To 
the contrary, the cooperation and contention-based protocol rules both 
require that licensees take various steps to accommodate (or at least 
avoid interfering with) the operations of other licensees in their 
area. Similarly, these requirements should eliminate licensee behavior 
that could overcrowd the band to the detriment of all users. They will 
prevent licensees from consuming the full band and crowding out the 
transmissions of other operators. Licensees that must coordinate their 
operations with other licensees and deploy equipment that avoids 
harmful interference will not be able to overwhelm their neighbors.
    8. In contrast to an exclusive licensing model in which a licensee 
may exclude others from a particular license area, the non-exclusive 
licensing model adopted in the 3650 MHz Order requires a potential 
entrant to consider that the presence of other licensees will require 
cooperative use and may, at times, restrict the amount of spectrum and/
or time that spectrum is available to any particular licensee. That 
trade-off, however, does not automatically render the spectrum 
unusable.

Contention-Based Protocol

    9. In the 3650 MHz Order, the Commission explained that contention-
based protocols, which it required for fixed, base and mobile equipment 
operating in the band, would ``allow multiple users to share the same 
spectrum by defining the events that must occur when two or more 
devices attempt to simultaneously access the same channel and 
establishing rules by which each device is provided a reasonable 
opportunity to operate.'' The Commission's goal in adopting the 
contention requirement was to speed deployment in the 3650 MHz band by 
allowing multiple entrants to provide service. It saw the protocol as a 
means to ``ensure efficient and cooperative shared use of the 
spectrum.'' The Commission chose not to require a specific contention-
based protocol, leaving it to industry and standards bodies to 
determine appropriate protocols. The Commission cautioned, though, that 
equipment would not be certified for use in the band if it appeared 
``to be designed to preclude others from using this spectrum.'' The 
Commission stated that it would monitor use of the spectrum, and would 
modify the rules if there appeared to be significant problems in this 
regard.
    10. The Commission concludes that the public interest is best 
served by retaining the requirement that fixed, base and mobile 
equipment operating in the band incorporate a contention-based 
protocol. Given the decision to retain non-exclusive licensing in the 
3650 MHz band, the Commission continues to believe that equipment 
incorporating a contention-based protocol will provide a cost-effective 
means to enable multiple users to operate on the same frequencies in 
the band without interfering with one another. With contention-based 
protocol requirement, operators and their customers will not have to 
rely on frequency coordination prior to the initiation of service; this 
will reduce costs and delay.
    11. The Commission is not persuaded that the shortcomings that 
petitioners ascribe to contention protocols will necessarily limit use 
of the band to short range applications. Competing evidence indicates 
that contention technology is suitable for many different applications 
that the 3650 MHz Order envisioned, including long range operations. 
Long range transmissions typically would be point-to-point using narrow 
beams. Point-to-point transmissions at the power limits adopted for the 
band will have a lower potential for interference and allow providers 
to use this band for backhaul operations, especially in less congested 
rural areas. The Commission's goal of providing for multiple entrants 
in the band can best be accomplished if users have the flexibility to 
choose the technology most appropriate to meet their needs. 
Accordingly, the Commission denies those petitions for reconsideration 
that seek elimination of the contention protocol requirement.
    12. The Commission clarifies that the 3650 MHz rules provide for 
certification of a variety of devices that may use different types of 
protocols or interference avoidance mechanisms that satisfy the 
contention definition that applies to the 3650 MHz band. The definition 
of what constitutes a valid contention protocol for the 3650 MHz band 
is broad enough to encompass different types of contention protocols 
and interference avoidance mechanisms, thereby promoting innovation and 
product development. As stated in the 3650 MHz Order, equipment for use 
in the 3650 MHz band must incorporate a mechanism that allows 
``multiple users to share the same spectrum * * * and establish[es] 
rules by which each device is provided a reasonable opportunity to 
operate.''
    13. The record reveals two broad categories of contention-based 
protocols, both of which appear to the requirements for operation in 
the 3650 MHz band. Nonetheless, they may not be compatible with each 
other, and the use of both types could result in co-frequency 
interference and thus frustrate the Commission's goal of allowing for 
multiple entrants in the band. Under the Commission's rules, 
contention-based protocols can be categorized as either 
``unrestricted'' or ``restricted.'' Unrestricted protocols are broadly 
compatible and function to prevent interference even with other, 
dissimilar contention technologies on the market. A listen-before-talk 
technology like that in Wi-Fi devices is a prime example of an 
unrestricted contention-based protocol. On the other hand, restricted 
contention protocols can prevent interference only with other devices 
incorporating the same protocol.
    14. Allowing the use of different protocols in the band will serve 
the goal of speeding deployment of service, since operators will be 
able to deploy many different technologies, including those already 
being developed for use in the 3650 MHz band world-wide. Nonetheless, 
the potential exists for conflict between certain types of protocols, 
which could result in interference and/or a denial of access to the 
band for certain users. To resolve this conflict, the Commission will 
certify equipment using a restricted contention protocol but will limit 
the operation of such equipment to the lower 25 megahertz of the 3650 
MHz band. On the other hand, equipment using an unrestricted contention 
protocol will be allowed to operate throughout the 50 megahertz in the 
3650 MHz band, since it will be able to detect other transmissions 
throughout the band and thus avoid co-frequency interference anywhere 
in the band. The Commission concludes that this approach will ensure 
efficient use of the spectrum and permit the prompt deployment in this 
country of equipment that is already being used in this spectrum in 
other countries around the globe. Permitting a number of different 
contention based technologies to operate in the band will also provide 
additional flexibility to licensees to choose the best suitable 
technology for the type of services they plan to provide.

[[Page 40770]]

    15. The Commission will implement this approach through the 
equipment certification process, under which it will examine for 
compliance with the rules all equipment proposed for use in the 3650 
MHz band. It will condition the certification for equipment using a 
restricted protocol to limit its operation and tuning range to the 
bottom 25 megahertz of the band. The registration database will include 
the FCC identification number, reflecting the equipment certification 
condition restricting the licensee's operating frequency range if the 
licensee employs equipment using a restricted contention-based 
protocol.
    16. The Commission recognizes that manufacturers, through software 
upgrades or other means may alter the emission characteristics of 
previously deployed devices so that they move from the restricted to 
the unrestricted category. To the extent that this occurs, the 
manufacturer will be responsible for complying with the Commission's 
rules regarding the need for new equipment certification before the 
device will be permitted to tune over the full 50 megahertz of the 3650 
MHz band. Further, affected licensees must update their base and fixed 
station registrations to reflect this change.
    17. By contrast, the Commission will not condition the 
certification for equipment incorporating an unrestricted contention-
based protocol, thus allowing such equipment to operate throughout the 
full 50 MHz of the band. This should create an added incentive for 
industry groups and manufacturers to speed their development and 
deployment of such technology. In the long term, this, should improve 
the quality of service in the 3650 MHz band, furthering the public 
interest. At the same time, however, permitting restricted contention 
technologies to operate in the lower 25 MHz of the band will ensure 
that a wider range of currently available equipment may be immediately 
deployed in the band.
    18. The Commission denies the petitions for reconsideration to the 
extent that they seek elimination of the requirement that equipment in 
the 3650 MHz band incorporate a contention-based protocol.
    19. The Commission notes the request by BRN Phoenix that the 
Commission certify its Advanced Antenna System as the (apparently sole) 
contention-based protocol for use in the 3650 MHz band. The Commission 
expects that a variety of different contention technologies will 
qualify for deployment in the band. BRN, like other parties may seek 
certification for its Advanced Antenna System from the Laboratory 
Division of the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology.

Emissions Limits

    20. In setting the power limits for transmissions in the 3650 MHz 
band, the Commission balanced numerous competing factors to ``serve the 
public interest and foster the expeditious introduction of new 
terrestrial services in the 3650 MHz band.'' These factors included (1) 
the importance of interference protection for grandfathered satellite 
earth stations and federal government radiolocation stations and (2) 
the need to ensure efficient use of the band by avoiding mutual 
interference among licensed operators. To this end, the Commission 
adopted a peak power density of 25 Watts per 25 MHz of bandwidth and no 
greater than 1 watt per 1 MHz of bandwidth for fixed operations and 
imposed a limit of 1 Watt per 25 MHz of bandwidth for mobile 
operations.

Fixed and Mobile Power Limits

    21. The Commission declines to increase the power limits for either 
fixed or mobile operations in the 3650 MHz band. In adopting power 
limits for this band, the Commission balanced the potential for inter-
service and intra-service interference with the need to provide for 
satisfactory service by 3650 MHz devices. At the same time, the 
Commission was concerned that the combination of power limits and the 
size of the earth station exclusion zones that it adopted would 
adequately protect from harmful interference the grandfathered 
satellite operations and Federal Government radiolocation stations.
    22. The Commission concludes that the 3650 MHz Order set the 3650 
MHz power limits at an appropriate level. The levels adopted are 
adequate to support commercially viable services and will allow 
licensees to operate effectively in the band without unacceptably 
interfering with each other's operations (provided they deploy 
equipment incorporating an appropriate contention technology). At the 
same time, the power limits, combined with the size of the protection 
zones for grandfathered satellite earth stations, will prevent 
terrestrial operations in the band from interfering with in-band 
satellite operations.

Advanced Antenna Systems

    23. The Commission declines BRN's request to reconsider the limit 
on power output in the 3650 MHz band. In the 3650 MHz Order, the 
Commission balanced the public interest factors that BRN raises in its 
petition. Specifically, it considered the issues surrounding 
``deployment of advanced antenna systems, including sectorized and 
adaptive array systems.'' It balanced the need for ``flexibility for 
licensees to employ a wide variety of advanced antennas to meet their 
needs'' with the goal of protecting satellite earth stations. In so 
doing, it concluded that, ``to allow flexibility in deployment'' of 
these systems, it would allow such antennas to operate with a slightly 
higher power output. BRN Phoenix identifies no deficiency in the 
Commission's decision that would warrant reconsideration. Accordingly, 
the Commission denies its petition in this regard.

FSS Satellite Issues

    24. The Commission took several steps to minimize the extent to 
which terrestrial operations in the 3650 MHz band would affect the 
operations of satellite operators in both the conventional C-band 
(3700-4200 MHz) and the extended C-band (3625-3700 MHz). First, the 
Commission established protection zones with a radius of 150 km around 
the earth stations of grandfathered Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) 
operators in the 3650 MHz band. The Commission ruled that licensees in 
the 3650 MHz band could establish Fixed Service operations within the 
protection zones only with the consent of the affected FSS operator. 
For 3650 MHz licensees, the Commission established fixed station 
operating power limits of 25 Watts and mobile station operating power 
limits of 1 Watt. Additionally, the Commission sought to avoid out-of-
band interference by requiring operators to limit emissions into 
adjacent bands by a minimum attenuation of 43 + 10 log(P) below the 
transmit power.

Out-of-Band Interference

    25. The Satellite Industry Association (SIA) sought reconsideration 
of the 3650 MHz Order, arguing that the newly authorized terrestrial 
operations in the 3650 MHz band will create interference in the 
adjacent 3700-4200 band that, contrary to the public interest, could 
disrupt C-band satellite operations. The Commission concludes that 
SIA's analysis contains overly conservative assumptions about path loss 
attenuation, the necessary C/I protection ratio and the arrival angle 
of a 3650 MHz signal at a satellite earth station. Each of these 
assumptions contributes to the overly pessimistic picture that SIA 
paints in its analysis. When these assumptions are adjusted to reflect 
more realistic operational scenarios the attenuation requirement in the 
3650

[[Page 40771]]

MHz Order adequately protects operations in adjacent bands.
    26. The Commission may, however, require greater suppression of the 
out-of-band emissions of a 3650 MHz operator in those rare instances 
when a 3650 MHz transmitter falls near the main beam and in a line of 
sight of a satellite earth station.

Power Limits and LNB Saturation

    27. SIA argued that the potential exists for emissions from the 
3650 MHz transmitters to saturate the low noise block converters (LNBs) 
on FSS earth stations operating in the adjacent C-band at 3700-4200 
MHz. SIA requests that the Commission reconsider the permissible power 
level for fixed and base stations, at least in the upper half of the 
3650 MHz band (that closest to the C-band) and set it at a level below 
the 25-watt figure that the prior order adopted.
    28. The Commission declines to reconsider the permissible power 
limits in the 3650 MHz band as SIA requests. A review of the analysis 
that SIA provides for its argument on LNB saturation reveals that it is 
based on two very conservative assumptions. The predicted saturation is 
most pronounced when the arrival angle of the satellite antenna is 5 
degrees. At greater arrival angles--as will exist for the great 
majority of earth stations--the interference projected by SIA's 
analysis is reduced. The Commission also notes that SIA has again 
assumed free space assumptions for its propagation analysis. Employing 
a path loss exponent greater than 2, as was done for the OOB emissions 
estimate, significantly reduces the potential interference.
    29. Given the smaller separation distances necessary to alleviate 
LNB saturation predicted by a more realistic propagation model, a 
modest coordination effort should allow satellite earth stations to 
operate effectively, despite the presence of nearby operations in the 
3650 MHz band. The Commission expects 3650 MHz licensees and satellite 
operators to undertake such coordination where necessary. The 
registration requirement for fixed and base station operations in the 
band will facilitate this coordination. In the registration process, 
licensees in the 3650 MHz band will be required to provide 
identification and location information for their fixed and base 
stations, as well as the technical information necessary for 
interference analysis.
    30. The Commission rejects the argument that the authorization of 
operations in the 3650 MHz band improperly places the burden of 
avoiding interference on incumbents. It is not Commission policy to 
protect incumbent licensees against all emissions from adjacent bands; 
this is particularly true when the emissions are a foreseeable result 
of prior allocation orders. Installation of appropriate filters on 
satellite earth stations can adequately address the LNB saturation 
issue that SIA now raises.

Satellite Coordination Requirements

    31. Petitioners urge the Commission to impose the guidelines of the 
Commission's part 101 rules as a framework for the coordination of 3650 
MHz operations within the exclusion zones established around 
grandfathered FSS earth stations. They contend that this would expedite 
fixed station entry without creating interference risk to the 
grandfathered FSS earth stations.
    32. The Commission declines to adopt the part 101 rules as the sole 
means of coordination for those 3650 MHz licensees seeking to operate 
fixed services within the exclusion zones that the Commission 
established around grandfathered FSS earth stations. The part 101 
rules, inter alia, ``prescribe the manner in which portions of the 
radio spectrum may be made available for private * * * microwave 
operations that require transmitting facilities on land.'' In doing so, 
however, they set out specific coordination procedures and interference 
protection criteria for covered fixed microwave transmitters. Rather 
than impose these specific procedures and criteria, the Commission 
prefers to allow the parties involved to choose for themselves the 
rules governing their particular negotiations.

Ordering Clauses

    33. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 302, 
303(e), 303(f), and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 154(i), 302, 303(c), 303(f), and 307, this Order on 
Reconsideration is hereby adopted.
    34. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 
and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
154(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), and 405, that the petitions for 
reconsideration, filed by Motorola and Redline and seeking 
clarification regarding the contention-based protocol requirement are 
granted to the extent discussed in the Memorandum Opinion and Order.
    35. Part 90 of the Commission's rules is amended as specified in 
rule changes, and such rule amendments shall be effective August 24, 
2007.
    36. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 
and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
154(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), and 405, that the remainder of the 
petitions for reconsideration filed by Motorola and Redline, as well as 
the reconsideration petitions of BRN Phoenix, the Enterprise Wireless 
Alliance, the Satellite Industry Association, the Wireless 
Communications Association, the Wi-Max Forum, and the joint petition of 
Intel, Redline and Alvarion are denied.

Report to Congress

    37. The Commission will send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act.\1\ In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 47 CFR part 90

    Communications equipment, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rule

0
For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission amends 47 CFR part 90 to read as follows:

PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 
303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).


0
2. Section 90.7 is amended by revising the definition of ``Contention-
based protocol'' to read as follows.


Sec.  90.7  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Contention-based protocol. A protocol that allows multiple users to 
share the same spectrum by defining the events that must occur when two 
or more transmitters attempt to simultaneously access the same channel 
and establishing rules by which a transmitter provides reasonable 
opportunities for other transmitters to operate. Such a protocol may 
consist of procedures for initiating new transmissions, procedures for 
determining the state of the channel

[[Page 40772]]

(available or unavailable), and procedures for managing retransmissions 
in the event of a busy channel. Contention-based protocols shall fall 
into one of two categories:
    (1) An unrestricted contention-based protocol is one which can 
avoid co-frequency interference with devices using all other types of 
contention-based protocols.
    (2) A restricted contention-based protocol is one that does not 
qualify as unrestricted.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 90.203 is amended by revising paragraph (o) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  90.203  Certification required.

* * * * *
    (o) Equipment certification for transmitters in the 3650-3700 MHz 
band. (1) Applications for all transmitters must describe the 
methodology used to meet the requirement that each transmitter employ a 
contention based protocol and indicate whether it is capable of 
avoiding co-frequency interference with devices using all other types 
of contention-based protocols (see Sec. Sec.  90.7, 90.1305 and 90.1321 
of this part);
    (2) Applications for mobile transmitters must identify the base 
stations with which they are designed to communicate and describe how 
the requirement to positively receive and decode an enabling signal is 
incorporated (see Sec.  90.1333 of this part); and
    (3) Applications for systems using advanced antenna technology must 
provide the algorithm used to reduce the equivalent isotropically 
radiated power (EIRP) to the maximum allowed in the event of 
overlapping beams (see Sec.  90.1321 of this part).
    (4) Applications for fixed transmitters must include a description 
of the installation instructions and guidelines for RF safety exposure 
requirements that will be included with the transmitter. (See Sec.  
90.1335).

0
4. Section 90.1319 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  90.1319  Policies governing the use of the 3650-3700 MHz band.

    (a) Channels in this band are available on a shared basis only and 
will not be assigned for the exclusive use of any licensee.
    (b) Any base, fixed, or mobile station operating in the band must 
employ a contention-based protocol.
    (c) Equipment incorporating an unrestricted contention-based 
protocol (i.e. one capable of avoiding co-frequency interference with 
devices using all other types of contention-based protocols) may 
operate throughout the 50 megahertz of this frequency band. Equipment 
incorporating a restricted contention-based protocol (i.e. one that 
does not qualify as unrestricted) may operate in, and shall only tune 
over, the lower 25 megahertz of this frequency band.
    (d) All applicants and licensees shall cooperate in the selection 
and use of frequencies in the 3650-3700 MHz band in order to minimize 
the potential for interference and make the most effective use of the 
authorized facilities. A database identifying the locations of 
registered stations will be available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls. 
Licensees should examine this database before seeking station 
authorization, and make every effort to ensure that their fixed and 
base stations operate at a location, and with technical parameters, 
that will minimize the potential to cause and receive interference. 
Licensees of stations suffering or causing harmful interference are 
expected to cooperate and resolve this problem by mutually satisfactory 
arrangements.

 [FR Doc. E7-14211 Filed 7-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P